I’d rather experience “troglodytic anti-intellectual drivel” anyday over pedantic pseudointellectual indignation. Thanks to all the gods at once that most Dopers aren’t that insecure. The day that I equate purely subjective opinions that differ from my own with “troglodytic anti-intellectual drivel” will, I hope, be the same day that my organs are harvested, my remaining remains annointed with a lemon-impregnated white musk based balm, and my favorite concubines line up willingingly to lie by my side on my byre lit from a flame kept glowing since the eruption of Thera. Or a Thursday.
Well, to be fair to Ilsa_Lund, when people start mentioning Kubrick, you know intellectualism has gone bye bye. I’d watch movies with him and Cervaise and lissener any day.
Wow. You are so incredibly right. I would never have thought about it, but it’s so true. Overwrought dialog, awful “arty” scene transitions… blech.
I also agree 100% with Mauvaise about Eyes Wide Shut, I was just afraid to say anything.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but are you implying that because I dislike Eyes Wide Shut (and said so) that I’m somehow lacking in intelligence? Because I believe that’s the exact attitude that the OP was talking about. Why can’t someone simply dislike a movie without it being a measuring stick of their intelligence (or lack thereof)?
Boy, your username sure isn’t a misnomer, is it? 
I nominate as “the unenjoyably pretentious movie by which all other unenjoyably pretentious movies are judged”: Barry Lyndon.*
Second place: Roman Polanski’s Tess.
*Please do not see this movie as a result of my mentioning it. I would not want that on my conscience.
Oh, yeah, on the note of Kubrik, could anyone explain to me what the heck 2001 was about? My friend and I got too bored with the long scenes of nothing happening, so we decided to watch it in fast foward. Scary thing is, I don’t think we missed that much.
As far as I could tell, the plot when something like this…
[spoilers]
- The aliens taught the monkeys how to bonk, and they evolved into people who bonk.
- Millenia later, the humans discover a relic of these aliens on the moon.
- They send a spaceship with a slightly murderous computer–HAL–on board to investigate the possibility of a second relic on Jupiter.
- When one of the astronauts notices an anomaly with HAL, it kills said astronaut and proceeds to eliminate any other living being in an attempt to cover things up.
- Dave survives these attempts and disables HAL, then discovers the true goal of the mission was to make contact with the aliens.
- Dave plunges into the second relic and experiences lots of funky computer effects.
- Dave arrives in an earth-like room and spends the rest of his life there.
- Dave becomes a Space-Baby and returns to earth, presumably to enlighten the rest of humanity.
[/spoilers]
No. But likewise, I don’t believe the director was trying to be representative of all kids, and I don’t believe that the lead doing all those things in one day means it was a typical day for him. Cinema follows a small subset of people and it compresses time to fit its message into the story - these are inevitabilities of the medium. If you don’t understand even that much, you have no business criticising.
Why? Because some people go to movies purely as an escape. Some people go to movies for the intellectual or emotional experience, and are entertained by the philosophical process of examining and understanding a film, and sharing that experience with other film lovers, even ones who may not have enjoyed the movie and found it to be flawed or inferior. And some people go to movies so they brag about how cultured they are. They’re not so interestested in what the movie is about, as they are in using it as some sort of certificate that they’re better and/or more intelligent than the general rabble. To them, a film isn’t a film, it’s a club, and God help you if you don’t agree with their ex cathedera proclamations about what films are and are not good, because they are going to do their damnedest to beat you down with that club until you learn not to sully the films they love with your plebian opinion.
2001 was a very strange marketing/story-release strategy: the movie was based on the novel which was based on the movie. They were released at the same time, though not in the usual “film novelization” sort of way; each was meant to complement the other. Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to understand either without the other.
The obelisk-for-hominids scene in the book makes much more sense (not that that’s saying a lot): essentially it monitors a creature’s genetic abilities [including intelligence and reasoning- in the
GODDAM POP-UP ADS! NO I DON’T WANT ANY FRIGGING VIAGRA OR TO SEE TEEN SLUTS MAKING IT WITH COLLIES!
Sorry for the Tour-rants Syndrome- I’ve gotten about 20 pop-ups since I started typing this-
anyway- in the book the hominids were irrational APE 2.0 creatures (they had no concept of mortality, the mechanics of reproduction, change, etc.) essentially “propelled” by the obelisk (you never learn anything of its origin, history or ultimate purpose) towards the next state of evolution. At the end the human, who is as advanced above the hominid as the hominids were above lemurs, again encounters the obelisk and is propelled into rapid major evolution. What the Space Fetus was I haven’t a clue and I doubt Kubrick and Clarke really did.
I remember reading on Metafilter(?) some time back, about how Kubrick’s best-liked review of 2001, was written by a then-15 year old girl. Lemme dig that up.
Here it is.
First off, I don’t know where you get off trying to tell me that I can’t criticize anything I’d like. I may not have a degree in film, but I’m an intelligent, educated human being who is familiar with the form. I’ll criticize anything I damn well like, and as long as I can back up my assertions, you can just leave the attitude out of it. Punishment for violating that rule is that everyone will think that you’re an arrogant snot, and I’ll move on with my life after deciding to never take anything you say seriously ever again.
And of course the movie examined a small subset of people in a limited period of time. All of the sequential story based arts do; a novel might tell the story of a war lasting a hundred years and involving millions of people, but it’s going to do it through the eyes of a limited number of protagonists.
For most works, the challenge to the artist (and the viewer of that art) is to generalize from the particular to the universal. To say something large by showing one aspect of someone small’s life. That’s what we’re talking about when we’re discussing what the conch shell symbolizes in The Lord of the Flies. Golding uses the conch shell (something small) to say something about leadership (something large / universal).
That’s not to say that you can’t have a piece of art whose sole purpose is to be itself, but it’s not typical in movies. I don’t think that was what the director of Kids was trying to do - having watched the film, I think that he was intending for the audience to generalize from his lead character, to most of the other characters in the film, and then onto today’s children as a whole. I understood his intent, but I thought that not only was it inaccurate (which is fine with me - I don’t expect to agree with everyone on everything), but badly executed. It was clusmsy, strident, and boring. That’s why I thought it was a terrible movie.
If you can find me proof, like an interview with the director, that he intended it to be a slice of life piece that just happened to be of a particularily lothesome person, then fine, I’ll take back what I just said. I’m betting against it, though.
That’s exactly what I said … except much more briefly. Lund’s mama eats snowshoes!
Why can’t some people realize that just because they don’t like a movie, it doesn’t mean that the movie is bad, a piece of trash, sucks?
Intelligent, reasonable people realize that not everyone will like everything, and that their opinion about a movie isn’t fact set in stone and coated in gold, and that something that might seem “pretentious” to them might not seem that way to someone else.
Look, I’m not the brightest bulb on the planet, and I didn’t like American Beauty, but I’m smart enough to know that it means something to other people. It features fine acting, excellent cinematography and a pretty interesting message (several of them). It won a lot of awards and though I would have chosen differently, I can see why people liked it. I just don’t like it. It’d be pretty stupid of me to call it a “piece of crap” when I know it’s not.
It isn’t someone disliking a film I like that’s my problem. It’s this pathetic, black and white, either/or mentality that makes me mad.
Good thing I haven’t seen any of that type in this thread or the SDMB in general.
By the same token, why can’t some people realize that just because they do like a movie, it doesn’t mean that it’s good, a work of genius, awesome? If some one can call a movie I dislike “good,” I have just as much right to call it “bad.”
Yes, we all know that. We also all know (or should) that the value of any work of art is subjective, and there’s no need to preface every statement of relative worth with “IMO.” It’s understood that if I call a movie a steaming pile of moosecrap masquerading as night out at the movies, and reasonable, intelligent adult ought to be able to figure out that I’m speaking only for myself, and no one else.
All I can do is tell you how I reacted to a movie. How everyone else reacted to it doesn’t make a difference in that, one way or the other. If I see a movie and have a severly negative reaction to it, I’m going to say that I thought it was a piece of crap, because that was my experience with it. Except I might not bother to say “I thought” because any reasonably bright person already knows I’m stating an opinion.
It is black or white. You either like a film, or you dislike it. That’s all any comment or critique of a movie ever is: opinion. Stop interpreting dislike of a movie as disapproval of yourself. Calling a movie pretentious isn’t the same thing as calling people who like it pretentious.
Look closer.
You got me there, but forgive me if I don’t listen to someone who says that, say, Kubrick isn’t good, a work of genius, awesome.
Of course you do. People are entitled to their opinions and everyone has the right to be wrong.
I see what you’re saying, but you’d never know that the way some people talk. I guess I should just keep tabs on my own language and not pay attention to what anyone else says. If I don’t like a movie I’ll say “I didn’t care for it” or something along those lines. I’ll assume that people who use harsher language are only speaking for themselves and know that their opinion is not fact. That will make the next few weeks much easier to bear.
A movie that I love is coming out in the US in a couple of weeks (Dogville) which will also be loved by some, but will be at the top of many people’s “THAT WAS PRETENTIOUS CRAP!!!” list. It could get ugly, but I’ll try to keep my own mouth shut.
But every movie lover has had instances where they didn’t like a movie upon first viewing, but then saw it again and loved it. If the movie was a “piece of crap” the first time, then what changed? Not the movie. The viewer’s perception of it changed. I’m always willing to have my mind opened. I tried several times while growing up to get into Citizen Kane, but got confused or bored. It wasn’t until I saw it in the theater on an anniversary re-release that it finally clicked and I understood why so many people call it the best movie ever made. It’s still not the best movie ever made to me, but I understand and accept why others say it is. I thought Night of the Hunter was one of the worst movies I’d ever seen until I saw it in the theater in a revival, and it clicked for me too. That’s one reason why I sneer at that phrase (“worst movie I ever saw”) because I know now how stupid it sounds from firsthand experience. (Note: why did I go see it even though I hated it when I watched it at home? Because it’s very highly regarded and I figured the problem was with ME and not with the film. I was right.)
It is to some people here. What did you just say??
Indeed. But you did not back up your assertions - you still haven’t, for that matter; you’ve put the burden of proof on me - and that made you look like a know-nothing bozo making grand sweeping generalisations. When someone roasts you for doing that, take your licks in silence because it’s your fault.
Larry Clark has said in interview that he makes films about things that go on all the time but which nobody talks about. I personally don’t read that as a statement that the things he makes films about are endemic, but if your mileage varies I can understand why; it’s a bit ambiguous.
Why can’t some people realise that when someone does say that the movie is bad, a piece of trash, sucks, that they are merely stating their opinion. Do people really need to say “I think” or “I feel” or “It is my opinion that” before saying “this movie sucks”? Simply stating that a movie sucks doesn’t mean they think everyone who liked it was an idiot.
Dumb & Dumber sucked beyond all belief. Don’t you see how that’s me expressing my opinion and not making any sweeping statement about anyone else that did happen to like the movie?
(For the record, in my first post here, I didn’t say any movie is bad, piece of trash, sucks, etc.)
Right, but this thread is movies one finds pretentious. You know, asking for our thoughts, feelings, opinons? It seems that you’re trying to tell us that our own opinions are wrong.
Why would that be stupid? You didn’t like the movie - you think it’s a piece of crap, regardless of whether anyone liked it. Are people not allowed to explain why they didn’t like a movie? Are we only allowed to say, “I didn’t like that movie” and not explain that it’s because we thought it was pretentious, or poorly written, or badly acted, or any number of less than flattering reasons? They are only one (or maybe even more) person’s opinion. Why can’t they state it without offending you?
Why should it make you mad? What is it to you that I hate Forrest Gump and think it was a trite glurgefest that didn’t deserve it’s oscar? Why can’t someone just feel a film has no redeeming qualities without it being “pathetic”?
While Larry Clark’s STATEMENTS may have been ambiguous, I didn’t find the MOVIE ambiguous at all. I thought it very strongly conveyed the message Risha perceived; that kids today are beastly scum. This being a rather boring and cliched message - almost every adult in the history of civilization has thought the same thing - it’s not a terribly impressive one. I felt “Kids” was just pandering to a common and base fear. Just like “Bully,” actually, which was more of the same except Clark managed to get more teenaged booty on screen in that case. Oh, and just like “Ken Park.” Whatever you can say about Larry Clark, you can’t say he has a lot of range.
What Clark SAID it was about frankly means jack squat. If a director provides an insight into a film’s meaning that can be useful, but it’s getting to be a shortcut around the cruddiness of movies. This same argument keeps coming up over and over, about many different movies; “yes, it may appear that Movie Title was this and that, but the director said differently.” It’s the ultimate in auteur theory; the movie on screen doesn’t even matter, now what matters is the movie in the director’s head.
Art is performance, not intent. I appreciate the director might have been trying to do something, but if it’s not on the screen or in the soundtrack, it isn’t there. It can be subtext, it can be delivered though a manner more subtle than naked exposition or big explosions, but it’s got to be in the movie.